SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (SIP). AYP INDICATORS, COMPONENTS AND STANDARDS  Reading/ELA  Performance: 87% Proficiency Rate  Participation: 95% Participating.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA September 2003.
Advertisements

Title I/AYP Presentation Prepared by NHCS Title I Department for NHCS PTA September 22, 2010.
School Accountability Ratings What Are Our District’s Accountability Ratings? What do they mean?
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
System Safeguards and Campus Improvement
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
State and Federal Accountability Directors of Special Education October 10, 2013 Region One Education Service Center Office of School Improvement, Accountability,
Accountability Updates Testing & Evaluation Department May 21, 2014 Mission High School MISSION CISD DEIC MEETING.
Oct 1 Accountability Webinar Kim Gilson Senior Consultant Data and Accountability Region 10 ESC
Part 2. Participate fully Hand in the air for getting attention Problem solve Limit side conversations Silence cell phone Norms.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
AYP Status Determination in Smart Accountability Six Steps to Status.
Adequate Yearly Progress 2012 Comfort ISD. Measures Evaluated Reading/ELA – Percent of students (Grades 3-8 and 10) who are Proficient in Reading/ELA.
Accountability State and Federal Ratings August 11, 2009 Board Presentation 1.
Bailey Elementary Title I Parent Information Meeting Tuesday, September 27, 2011.
September 26, 2006 Schools in NCLB Restructuring: National Trends Kerstin Carlson Le Floch James Taylor Yu Zhang.
Questions & Answers About AYP & PI answered on the video by: Rae Belisle, Dave Meaney Bill Padia & Maria Reyes July 2003.
Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.
San Leandro Unified School Board Looking Closely About Our Data September 6, 2006 Presented by Department of Curriculum and Instruction Prepared by Daniel.
1 Title IA Online Coordinator Training School Improvement.
AYP vs. AEIS Talking Carroll Elementary October 5, 2010.
Presented by: Rick Kirk Assistant Superintendent of Assessment and Accountability Presentation to the Board of Trustees January 11, 2010 Pete Pape Chief.
SAISD Principal’s Meeting September 17, 2003 Office of Research and Evaluation.
10/21/20151 STATE ASSESSMENTS UPDATE Goose Creek CISD Principal Academy August 6, 2012.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
August 18, 2015 Net 3 Texas Accountability for State and Federal System Safeguards.
Testing & Accountability Update TAKS, EOC, & STAAR.
1 No Child Left Behind for Indian Groups 2004 Eva M. Kubinski Comprehensive Center – Region VI January 29, 2004 Home/School Coordinators’ Conference UW-Stout.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
School Accountability in Delaware for the School Year August 3, 2005.
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) Elements School Improvement District.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) Results Update Prepared by the LUSD Assessment, Research & Evaluation Department.
August 1, 2007 DELAWARE’S GROWTH MODEL FOR AYP DETERMINATIONS.
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a required activity of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
NCLB / Education YES! What’s New for Students With Disabilities? Michigan Department of Education.
Force Field Analysis Connecting the Needs Assessment to the Campus Improvement Plan Texas School Improvement Conference October 2011.
Goal 1: To successfully educate all students Objective 3 Identify subgroups and content areas which contributed Identify subgroups and content areas which.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
Federal Accountability Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) and Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) Meeting | March 5, 2012 Texas.
School Improvement Resource Center Supporting campuses entering Title I School Improvement August 1, 2006.
Stage 4 Restructuring Stage 5 Alternative Governance.
B.P. Hopper Primary 405 E. Houston St. Highlands, TX Jessica Amezcua-Gallegos.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez January 2010.
1 Welcome to the Title I Annual Meeting for Parents Highland Renaissance Academy.
2012 Adequate Yearly Progress Preliminary Answers & other Important Information…
1 Restructuring Webinar Dr. Zollie Stevenson, Jr., Ph.D. Director Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs Office of Elementary and Secondary.
Presented by: Frank Ciloski, Sherry Hutchins, Barb Light, Val Masuga, Amy Metz, Michelle Ribant, Kevin Richard, Kristina Rider, and Helena Shepard.
Preliminary AYP Preliminary Adequate Yearly Progress Data.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 1, 2008.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA May 2003 Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez for Riverside Feeder Data Days February.
Title I Faculty Presentation Faculty Title I and AYP Combined Presentation.
Federal Accountability/ AYP Update Accountability TETN April 19, 2011 Shannon Housson and Ester Regalado TEA, Performance Reporting Division.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). What is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? As a condition of receiving federal funds under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), all.
Ellie Gearhart August Campus Improvement Plan Revise plan Parents School staff LEA Outside experts.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
OVERVIEW OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT – FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY BECCA MARSH, DIVISION OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AND SUPPORT TEA, CHARTER SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION ©2013.
Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.
Data Driven Decisions for School Improvement
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
Changes Ahead: Accountability
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
2013 Texas Accountability System
Campus Improvement Planning
Ace it!SM Tutoring Teacher Training
MIMIC ACCOUNTABILITY USING BENCHMARK DATA ! ?.
Presentation transcript:

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (SIP)

AYP INDICATORS, COMPONENTS AND STANDARDS  Reading/ELA  Performance: 87% Proficiency Rate  Participation: 95% Participating  Mathematics  Performance: 83% Proficiency Rate  Participation Rate: 95% Participating  Other Indicator  Graduation Rate (High School): 75% Target  Attendance Rate (Junior and Elementary Schools): 90% Rate

AYP MEASURES All Students and the following student groups:  African American  Hispanic  White  Economically Disadvantaged  Special Education  Limited English Proficient

FEDERAL CAP  Federal regulations limit the number of proficient assessment results from alternate assessments that may be counted as proficient in evaluating AYP.  A district’s federal cap limit is based on the total number of students enrolled in the district in grades 3-8 and 10 on the day of the test.  1% Cap: STAAR Alternate  2% Cap: STAAR Modified/TAKS-M

2012 AYP STATUS: MEETS AYP  IMPACT ECHS  Peter Hyland Program  Highlands Junior  Austin Elementary  Bowie Elementary  San Jacinto Elementary  Hopper Primary

2012 AYP STATUS: “MISSED AYP”  District: Reading Performance: AA, Hispanic, ED, Sp. Ed., LEP Math Performance: AA, ED, Sp. Ed., LEP Graduation Rate: Sp. Ed.  Lee High School:Reading Performance: All, Hispanic, White, ED, Sp. Ed. Math Performance: All, Hispanic, White, ED, Sp. Ed. Graduation Rate: Sp. Ed.  Sterling High School: Reading Performance: AA, ED, Sp. Ed. Math Performance: All, AA, Hispanic, ED, Sp. Ed. Graduation Rate: Sp. Ed.  Memorial High School: Math Performance: All, AA, Hispanic, ED  Baytown Junior: Reading Performance: All, AA, Hispanic, ED Math Performance:: All, AA, Hispanic, ED  Cedar Bayou Junior:Reading Performance: Hispanic, ED, Sp. Ed.  Gentry Junior:Math Performance: AA, ED, Sp. Ed.  Horace Mann Junior:Reading Performance: All, AA, White, ED, Sp. Ed. Math Performance: All, AA, ED, Sp. Ed

2012 AYP STATUS: “MISSED AYP”  Alamo Elementary:Reading Performance: All, Hispanic Math Performance: AA, ED  Ashbel Smith Elementary:Reading Performance: All, Hispanic, ED, LEP Math Performance: All, Hispanic, ED  Carver Elementary:Reading Performance: All, AA, Hispanic, ED Math Performance: All, AA, ED  Crockett Elementary:Reading Performance: ED  De Zavala Elementary:Reading Performance: Hispanic, ED  Harlem Elementary:Math Performance: AA, ED  Highlands Elementary:Reading Performance: AA, LEP  Lamar Elementary:Reading Performance: All, AA, Hispanic, ED, Sp. Ed,, LEP Math Performance: All, AA,, Hispanic, ED, Sp. Ed., LEP  Travis Elementary:Math Performance: AA  Victoria Walker Elementary:Reading Performance: AA Math Performance: AA, ED

TITLE I SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT  Districts and campuses receiving Title I, Part A funds are subject to School Improvement requirements if they do not meet the AYP standard for the same indictor (Reading/ELA, Mathematics, Graduation Rate or Attendance Rate) for two or more consecutive years.  Districts and campuses are no longer subject to School Improvement when they meet the AYP standard for two consecutive years for the same indicator that originally triggered School Improvement.

GOOSE CREEK CISD SIP STATUS  District: Stage 2 (Reading)  Alamo Elementary: Stage 1 Year 1 (Reading)  Carver Elementary: Stage 1 Year 1 (Reading)  Travis Elementary: Stage 1 Year 1 (Math)

DETERMINING SIP STATUS  District Stage 2: Result of missing AYP in Reading for three years in a row.  Campus Stage 1 Year 1: Result of missing AYP in the same indicator two years in a row

SIP REQUIREMENTS: DISTRICT STAGE 2  Select a District Coordinator of School Improvement (DCSI) by September 7, 2012  Parent notification by September 15, 2012  Establish a District Leadership Team to conduct and monitor improvement activities  Implement and revise the district improvement plan developed under Stage 1

SIP REQUIREMENTS: CAMPUS STAGE 1 YEAR 1  Principals view applicable webinars in September  Principals attend Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS), Part 1 training at Region 4 on September 10, 2012  Establish Intervention Team  Conduct a student level review and data analysis  Conduct a needs assessment

SIP REQUIREMENTS: CAMPUS STAGE 1 YEAR 1 (Cont.)  Develop an improvement plan  Conduct a targeted student analysis  Revise CIP within 3 months  District provides technical assistance as the campus develops and implements the CIP  District reviews CIP

REQUIREMENTS: NON-TITLE I CAMPUSES  Non-Title I schools that do not meet AYP for two consecutive years are required to amend their school improvement plan to address the deficit areas. Non-Title I campuses and school districts will not be subject to other school improvement activities, supplemental services and corrective actions.  Sterling High School (Math)  Cedar Bayou Junior (Reading)

SIP FISCAL RESPONSIBILITIES  Professional development (District)  Professional development (Stage 1 campuses)  School Choice transportation

Systems for Continuous District and School Improvement